Systematic Review of Teammate Bullying and Hazing With Recommendations to Advance Peer Aggression Research in Sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Although sport participation can have positive benefits for athletes, there are also unique risks for receipt of aggression. Bullying and hazing occur across teammates in this setting and can have detrimental physical and psychological effects on athletes. This systematic review was designed to explore the sport literature to (1) uncover conceptualizations and associated prevalence of bullying and hazing and (2) elucidate factors related to bullying and hazing. PRISMA guidelines were followed when completing the review, and 38 studies were included. Prevalence rates varied from less than 10% to more than 70% across studies, and most studies sampled athletes from the United States or Canada. Factors associated with bullying or hazing experiences included younger athlete ages, newcomer status on team, increased Machiavellianism, aggressive-coercive personality styles, male gender, lower ability or skill level, and social norms for aggression. To strengthen future research in this area, scholars should more intentionally follow the American Psychological Association's Journal Article Reporting Standards and should ensure that chosen definitions and measures of bullying and hazing are reliable and valid in selected samples. Furthermore, it is impossible to consistently understand prevention and intervention efficacies related to bullying and hazing until researchers can define and delineate between varied forms of teammate-to-teammate aggression.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".